Does the Bible Reveal that our God is not God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TOME525
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TOME525

Guest
There are two aspects of the Nature of God that I would hold all Christians believe. One is that God is immutable the other is God is omniscient.

St Thomas Aquinas when writing on the reasonableness in the belief of God, held it was necessary that God be “Immutable” that is God doesn’t change, God cannot change. Yet through out the Old Testament there are situations where God does change. At one point he is ready to destroy Sodom and all its inhabitants, yet Abraham talks Him out of it. I think of the verse where it say about our God being “Slow to anger”. Being slow to anger, however, indicates a change in God in that He will eventually become angry. And there are plenty ofother examples found in the Old Testament of God changing His mind. Now if St Thomas was correct and God cannot change, how can God as described in the Old Testament be God with all the changing He does.

The second point is God is Omniscient, that is He knows all - has foreknowledge of all. Yet in Genesis alone, with in the first four chapters we have God being ignorant of the situations, namely, right after the Fall God didn’t know where Adam and Eve were because they were hiding. After Cain killed Able, God has to ask Cain where Able was.

I am sure that many will say this is an example of God knowing the truth and just making those responsible admitt the truth. But I ask, if this is so, isn’t this an interpetation? Why or how does one come interpret these passages, not taking them on their face value, but insist that other passages must be taken literally? How do you establish such a norm.

So this goes back to my original question, asked a little differently perhaps, is the Bible the Word of God and accepted as truth? And in accepting the Bible as such doesn’t this prove that the God of the Bible is not God at all?
 
It’s an interpretation either way you look at it - assuming God does know what is going on, but asks anyway, vs. assuming God does not know and asks.

The is one of the difficulties in believing that only the Bible is the basis of faith. The written word is so easily misinterpreted. Simple phrases in email, in our lives, can easily be misinterpreted.

Now, the Bible is very clear that God is both immutable and omniscient, so that should guide you to believe that, and if there are phrases that appear to contradict, since they cannot because the Bible is infallible, it must be your understanding or interpretation. So - God is immutable (clear), God takes action that appears to be a “change”, it’s easy for me to conclude there are circumstances about what God is thinking and knows as a precursor to that discussion in the Bible that if known to me, would affirm He is still immutable.

Catholics believe in Tradition and the teachings of the Church, we have the benefit of 2000 years of teachings that has been passed down to us. Many of these questions have been consistently cleared up through that as well.
 
Talmud says that the Torah speaks the words of men.

The CCC says the same truth.

Sophistry is ugly; it is not cute.

God is Beautiful.

The Devil is ugly.
 
The writings of the Bible were written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who revealed God in the words of men, using the expressions of men, since these writings were written, not to be read and understood by God, but by men.

We are finite beings who can only express ourselves in writing with our own poor words. Who could possibly describe the inner thinking processes of the infinite God without anthropomorphizing his thoughts, words, and actions? How could we ever relate to God if we couldn’t use such expressions? It would be impossible.

So, when one of the writers of the Sacred Texts tells us that God “repented” or that he is “slow to anger” or “held back his hand”, etc. the writer is using expressions that will make sense to other men. After all, God doesn’t need any writings to tell him who he is–he already knows. But men need language to try to understand who God is, and all we have to express that is our own poor limited words.
 
40.png
TOME525:
… Yet through out the Old Testament there are situations where God does change. At one point he is ready to destroy Sodom and all its inhabitants, yet Abraham talks Him out of it. I think of the verse where it say about our God being “Slow to anger”. Being slow to anger, however, indicates a change in God in that He will eventually become angry. And there are plenty ofother examples found in the Old Testament of God changing His mind. Now if St Thomas was correct and God cannot change, how can God as described in the Old Testament be God with all the changing He does.

The second point is God is Omniscient, that is He knows all - has foreknowledge of all. Yet in Genesis alone, with in the first four chapters we have God being ignorant of the situations, namely, right after the Fall God didn’t know where Adam and Eve were because they were hiding. After Cain killed Able, God has to ask Cain where Able was.?
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t necessarily agree with you that it shows that God changes. When God asks, “where are you?” it’s not that God does not know, it’s that He is aware that Adam and Eve were hiding, and He wanted them to admit it. A friend of mine who has studied Hebrew, says that this phrase should be translated, “Where are you, and I don’t expect you to answer as you did before?” If that is accurate, it shows that God knew even more about what Adam and Eve had done.
…
I am sure that many will say this is an example of God knowing the truth and just making those responsible admitt the truth. But I ask, if this is so, isn’t this an interpetation? Why or how does one come interpret these passages, not taking them on their face value, but insist that other passages must be taken literally? How do you establish such a norm.
Click to expand...
So this goes back to my original question, asked a little differently perhaps, is the Bible the Word of God and accepted as truth? And in accepting the Bible as such doesn’t this prove that the God of the Bible is not God at all?
Click to expand...
The Bible must be taken in its entirety and the word of God must be studied carefully for its meaning. It’s meaning does not yield, as would soft iron to a hammer on an anvil.
 
I read the several post from this thread I started. What might seem to some as a sophomoric attemp to look or sound intellegent on my part is not. The question I asked is quite serious.

Again, part of this thread is to ask what does it mean when we say that the Bible is the Word of God? Here as in other threads I find a certain ambivalence towards an answer (Della being an exception).

First, there is the constant thought that since the Bible is the Word of God in cannot contain error. But in light of Dei Verbum, what does that mean? If it doesn’t contain error, then why am I not suppose to take Gen 3: 8 - 11 literally or for that matter Gen 4:8 & 9 literally. In an earlier post by BayCityRick he used a statement about what the translation should read. Now I don’t read hebrew, however, I have read translations both from Jewish and Christian Bilble and I could not find that translation anywhere.
Neither the RSV - Cath, nor the NAB contain that add on and although many do not like the translation of the NAB, first it is the translation approved by the teaching authority here in America. Also, it is acknowledge to be a fairly accurate literal translation.
Actually, Rick’s observation sounds as if it comes more from Talmudic teachings. Which brings me back, should we accept commentary or what is written?

Another thread pointed out that it is because of my misinterpetation that I had made this points. I ask what interpetation? Isn’t what I stated taken directly from Scripture? Who is interperting?

If you ask most teachers of scripture concerning the scriptural basis for the Immutibility and Omnisiciene of God they should tell you that the Scriptures are not a very good basis due to the examples I gave earlier and the many more found throughout the Bible (consider Matt 24:26 - or was Jesus not telling us the truth in that verse?) If you study your Church History will find that the Immutibility and Omniscience of God was a Midevil philosophical conclusion whose conclusion lead to some of the theological difficulities we experienced during the Protestant Reformation, namely, Foreknowledge and Free Will.

Finally, I pose this thread because in other threads runs the oft heard response that this is what the Church teaches that the Bible is the Word of God therefore there cannot be error. I agree the Church does teach this however I think the Church’s teaching on Divine Revelation is different that what I often see express.

Therefore, for those who decide to respond to my questions, would you please use Dei Verbum as your basis and if you are going to quote the CCC, please go beyond pulling a verse or twofrom it and show how it relates to Dei Verbum and ultimately shows my errors?
 
40.png
TOME525:
Therefore, for those who decide to respond to my questions, would you please use Dei Verbum as your basis and if you are going to quote the CCC, please go beyond pulling a verse or twofrom it and show how it relates to Dei Verbum and ultimately shows my errors?
Click to expand...
The interpretaton of Dei Verbum appears to have some questions with it…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=80221
 
HagiaSophia, perhaps there is some interpetation, but could you be more specific?
 
40.png
TOME525:
HagiaSophia, perhaps there is some interpetation, but could you be more specific?
Click to expand...
Well I wish I could but all I know is what Bishop Levada said, (in the link I provided earlier) and since he’s now head of the CDF, I assume he didn’t make it as an “off the cuff” remark. It will be interesting indeed to see what more comes out –

From the article previously linked:

"Zenit reports that he suggested that the problem should be resolved by a careful, official, re-translation of the Council documents, perhaps in ten years time, to mark the Council’s 50th anniversary.

To date, no translation of Vatican II documents has been presented as official. "
 
HagiaSophia, thankyou for the links you provided. But from the articles I understand that the weekness of the translation of Dei Verbum lies in the presentation of the role of the Magisterium.

In regards to the used of historical - critical reading of the Bible Archbishop Lavada praises Dei Verbum because of its contribution to Catholic exegesis and in the words of the Archbishop, “…because of the importance of the literary genres for interpertation of Scripture”.

Hopefully, when I have time I’ll find the complete text of the Archbishop’s address, but again, from what I read there wasn’t a complaint about the translation concerning the use and role of Historical - Criticism.

But I would be interested if you were to address my original questions in this thread.
 
“I read the several post from this thread I started. What might seem to some as a sophomoric attempt to look or sound intelligent on my part is not. The question I asked is quite serious.”

I do not think that your question is sophomoric. I think sophistry is most subtle and dangerous. I cannot defend the Holy Bible or God’s teachings.

I believe the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church to be perfect. I do not know all of them and understand a little bit of the ones that I know. However, I believe all of them.

Eve could not defend God’s teaching. She made a mistake in trying to understand, explain and defend God’s promises. She should have believed Adam. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera…

No. You are not silly. I believe you are asking the wrong questions. I do not know if you are. I believe you are asking the wrong questions. Also, I believe you are getting wrong answers to those wrong questions. You are getting answers and joining those answers to the wrong questions.

One example: God hates sinners.
Code: 
        Dangerous question: How can one believe that God hates sinners (GOD is LOVE)?  

        Perhaps a good question: How is it that God hates sinners (and I am a sinner)?
I cannot prove faith. Therefore I cannot prove you are wrong. I can only believe and then say from faith, I believe you are wrong.

I do not know. I believe this. “Hear and then see…”


​
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top